Apples and Apples

Moral Relativism (4)
By T.M. Moore | Published Date: September 19, 2011

A response to relativism? Relativism by any other name is still relativism. We have been examining three of the perspectives on moral relativism which were part of a symposium in the January 9, 2011, issue of Philosophy Now. The three authors dealt with relativism from a different perspective, but it’s clear they were all describing the same elephant. In the February 26, 2011, issue of Philosophy Now, Dr. Mitchell Silver responded to the writers in that symposium by insisting that what he calls “moral objectivism” is not only possible, it is in fact inescapable. Dr. Silver explains that moral objectivism, as he propounds it, is grounded in rules – of permissibility and impermissibility – and these rules, taken together, exist apart from fleeting emotions, changing times, or any other of the criteria relativists appeal to in order to justify their own ethical practices. He insists that “moral objectivism is at least as rational, as well-grounded, and as consistent with reality, as any alternative metaethic.” His response intends to assert the superiority of “moral objectivism” over moral relativism. What he actually accomplishes, however, is something very different. To make his point, Dr. Silber demonstrates that all people live by rules. We can’t get away from them. We abide by the rules of the road, for example, as we drive to work. We accept certain rules with respect to doing our jobs, having meaningful conversations, managing a checking account, and so forth. These rules tell us what is permissible, and they mark out as well the boundaries of impermissibility. The rules by which we live “motivate actions and determine judgments” – they serve, that is, as ethical guidelines. Everyone has rules like this, Dr. Silver explains, even though a person may claim to be a moral relativist. However, whenever rules are involved, morality is constrained by boundaries external to the doer, and this, he contends, is a form of objectivism. Objectivists all Without explicitly saying so, Dr. Silver demonstrates that even the most adamantly relativist thinker is to some extent a moral objectivist, even though he may not be aware of it: “Moral objectivism requires only the acceptance of a set of permissibility rules. This involves no metaphysical delusions. Your permissibility rules may be tolerant, liberal, modest, tentative and undogmatic, or the opposite. So long as they are truly yours, you are a moral objectivist.” Thus Dr. Silver makes a point similar to the one we have made on this subject before: Even the most free-wheeling and unfettered relativism implies a fixed assumption that such an approach to ethical living is the right of every person. This is an objective assertion, a starting-point for ethics which is taken as fixed and only reluctantly changeable. And the inevitable tendency of all human beings to seize on one or another such fixed assumptions derives from something inherently human, something that cannot escape the need for an objective tether. This need is explained in Scripture by the fact that all people are made in the image of God and thus, in the very depths of their being, reflect the objective reality, and at least some awareness of or inclination toward, of the Deity and His fixed rules. But Dr. Silver explains that there can be many forms of moral objectivism: “The only requirement for your moral objectivist status is that the rules you accept classify some actions as morally out-of-bounds. And objectivism is not totalitarianism: even if you believe there are some things that no one ought to do, you can believe that there are many ways to lead an overall good life, and many situations that permit different courses of action. Hence a moral objectivist can be an ethical pluralist.” So “moral objectivism” as Dr. Silver defines it merely describes a universe of like-minded individuals – a universe as small as even one – who abide by similar rules of engagement, but whose rules of engagement may be dramatically different from those of other individuals and groups, and all still be perfectly valid. Apples and apples This is relativism. Dr. Silver is not, in the end, comparing apples with oranges, but apples with apples. So not only does Dr. Silver succeed in demonstrating that all relativists have an undeniable need for objective truth, he also shows that all “objectivism” which is not anchored in God and revelation – as his view is not – is but another form, albeit somewhat circumscribed, of relativism. A consistent system of ethics apart from God is impossible. In order to make any ethical progress whatsoever, unbelieving ethicists must disguise the fact that they borrow against divinely-revealed truth in order to achieve any semblance of coherence and congruency for their own views. But then they compromise that borrowed truth, living it out inconsistently, in an effort to make room for their preferred views on this, that, and the other. All unbelieving ethical systems therefore point to the ethics of Scripture, even as they deny that such an ethics should be embraced. The only way to overcome the strong allure of the path of mere self-interest marked out by moral relativism is to teach and practice consistent Biblical ethics, grounded in the Law of God, the teaching of the Prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles, and the grand tradition of the Christian Church. To do the right thing But where – as today – such vigorous ethical instruction is lacking, moral relativism, in one guise or another, will hold the field. Churches that do not teach their people to do the right thing, thinking and acting according to Biblical precepts and practices, are setting them up to blown about by the relativist winds of the age, whatever form those may take. But God does not intend for His people to be blown about by false winds of doctrine. He intends our sails to be filled with pure wind of His Spirit, billowing in the direction of Christ-likeness, as we sail even the most turbulent and changeable seas according to the charts and guidance of the Lord. C. S. Lewis once wrote, “The right defence against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments.” In terms of Christian ethics, the right way to keep from being jerked about by every nuance of relativistic thinking is to anchor in the Word of God, doing the right thing according to the teaching of the whole counsel of God in Scripture. Order your copy of our new DVD series, Doing the Right Thing, and learn why Christian and Biblical ethics are so desperately needed today. You might also read the article, “Codes Are Not Enough: Why We Need Ethics,” by Charles Colson. Here’s a great idea for dealing withAmerica’s moral crisis:do away with morality! Yeah, great idea. T. M. explains in this week’sPerspectivescolumn